January 18, 2016

The pause after the question is so long and the head shaking is so extensive — continuing even as Tapper moves on to thanking her for doing the show — that I felt sure she was lying. I thought the interesting question was not whether she was lying but how it felt — inside her head — from 0:08 to 0:10.5 as she decided a straight, one-word lie was the best approach. She must have calculated the risks and made a rough stab at how — if the fact of an interview ever comes out — she would do a depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is explanation.

Actually, the ambiguity of the question itself is reason enough alone to say "No" and still be accurate. He asked, "In terms of the status of the FBI investigation" had she been interviewed. Well, unless she was interviewed about the "status" of the investigation (whatever that means) then she's in the clear.

"I snarked: "It depends on what the meaning of 'interview' is." And: "It depends on what the meaning of 'yet' is."" That is so disrespectful, especially coming from someone who chided Sanders and Lazio for disrespecting this poor woman. Now you are even using Bill's language against her, as if it isn't bad enough to have to live with a rapist, or at least stay married to him. Here's hoping Loretta Lynch will shut this whole vendetta down so that the American voters can show once and for all that violating the law by putting classified material on private servers in Colorado closets is no big deal when we have the opportunity to put the first grandmother in the White House.

There's a scene in "Once and Future King" where young Wart is turned into a fish by Merlin as part of his ongoing education and preparation for becoming King Arthur one day. It culminates in him meeting a giant pike whose only goal was POWER (it's the "Might MAKES right vs. "Might FOR right" lesson). T. H. White describes the power-crazed fish as follows:

"The great body, shadowy and almost invisible among the stems, ended in a face which had been ravaged by all the passions of an absolute monarch—by cruelty, sorrow, age, pride, selfishness, loneliness, and thoughts too strong for individual brains. There he hung or hoved, his vast ironic mouth permanently drawn downward in a kind of melancholy. He was remorseless, disillusioned, logical, predatory, fierce, pitiless—but his great jewel of an eye was that of a stricken deer, large, fearful, sensitive, and full of griefs. He made no movement, but looked upon them with his bitter eye."

This was the face you just saw in Hillary Clinton, a face containing a lifetime of deceptions, destructions, and devourings. I do not see that face in any of the Republican candidates nor in Bernie nor O'Malley. But the Clintons ... that is their face.

The pause and gaze were discomfort and hate. And also Hilary warning that further questions like that will be severely punished, especially if she becomes President. "Your career will be over, Tapper" is the message.

The media types who are not favoring the Clintons are afraid of them. With reason. Tapper's quick scrabble away from the line of questioning shows that it works.

“I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don’t trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance, any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it.”

She may not have been questioned by the FBI yet, but I'm sure they've contacted her several times. That probably goes to the sense she was parsing her words and tone carefully.

She will be questioned and likely last as is often the case with the (most) guilty party. The investigator collects all the evidence and corroboration from the other witnesses/sources and then questions the investigation's key target. Not only is the target guilty, but they can pile on multiple counts of perjury if they start denying things that have been proven.

Chelsea is probably at risk, too, being she has been a foundation director since 2011 and the public corruption investigation is equally serious.

@PB it will be the public corruption charges that will sink her (if anything does) and with it maybe her daughter for the reasons you say and possibly her husband. The email the Left will spin away and any left minded moron will buy that. The money is harder to fool the rubes with.

I thought the interesting question was not whether she was lying but how it felt — inside her head — from 0:08 to 0:10.5 as she decided a straight, one-word lie was the best approach.

I don't think that was a flat out lie. That's why she had to think so much about it. If it were true, it would not be something she could hide.

It's the truth. And that's the problematic answer.

Because maybe then she might get asked: Why not? Isn't she co-operating with the investigation?? Or - have they asked?

No, she hasn't been interviewed - but that's because of the successful efforts of her lawyers to prevent that!

The FBI has no power of subpoena. They may have asked, and her lawyers may have said that she requires a subpoena, and maybe even said that even if she were subpoeaned before a grand jury - - she would take the 5th amendment. (and usually, prosecutors don't embarass witnesses like that.)

And she could argue that the answers to many questions may be privileged, and try to negotiate what her testimony would be about, and how much time there would be, and especially, can they tell her if she is, or is not, a target of the investigation?

Now the investigators may not be prepared to answer that yet, or perhaps have said: not so far.

You see, being a target of an investigation is certainly good grounds for taking the 5th amendment, and a person maybe then maintain with a straight face that that does not imply guilt.

That looked like a tape delay. Regardless, it seems silly to lie about that--it's not so bad to be interviewed by the FBI; it doesn't mean you are a suspect in doing something wrong. And if you can't discuss an ongoing investigation you can just say that.

But then, Clintons are such constant liars that they even lie when there's no benefit in doing so.

Now Jake Tapper did this when they were almost out of time, and Hillary Clinton thought a little, and then thought a little more, and ran out the clock a little bit more, as much as she could, just to increase the odds there would be no follow-up.

The question wasn't: "Did the FBI ask to interview you, but have they in fact done it?

Now she doesn't want to get a question for which a truthful answer would gether in trouble.

If she actually had been interviewed, she could also claim, if some time had passed, that they were satisfied with her answers, and they didn't have any more.

I don't think Hillary will speak to the FBI or testify, unless she can be very sure about the questions.

She'll look for excuses not to answer questions, and, if necessary, will take the 5th amendment. I think her lawyers may be trying to negotiate what the questions are going to be, and who is going to ask the questions, and how long it will take, and how longi t will be till she has to prepare, and if maybe they'll be satisfied with written questions -

that's it! -

She may have answered some written questions. Or had her lawyers draft some responses.

...and if they'll be satisfied with an affidavit, and if it can be a situation where she has the legal option of walking out..

And if she is called before a grand jury, they'll be working on how can they manuever it so she'll look the best if she takes the 5th amendment - and also try to keep the taking of thw 5th amendment a secret as long as possible. There's the problem of being asked if you took the 5th amendment, or asked to ask to release your grand jury testimony, so they don't want to get to that point.

I think the question is clear and she was telling the truth. Whether she was or was not interviewed by the FBI will surely be public information at some point. She could never get away with such a lie and she knows it. Maybe she was just tired.

@PB it will be the public corruption charges that will sink her (if anything does)

If the charges against New York State Assembly Speaker Speaker Sheldon Silver and Setate Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos are any precedent, or a template, you would probably need:

A) Money that actually went into Bill or Hillary Clinton's pocket, not the Clinton Foundation, even if much of what the Clinton Foundation spent money on was to the Clinton's benefit (e.g, travel, salaries for people close to them, office supplies and furniture)

AND EITHER

B) The money was extorted. The people who gave it didn't really want to give it.

OR

C) There was a blatant on-the-record quid pro quo - perhaps in the e-mails

OR

D) An official decision was made that has no reasonable, non-corrupt explanation. The easiest kind to prove would be one form or another of handing out money.

There is a large downside for Hillary! in lying about matters as to which the FBI agents conducting the investigation know the truth. Her credibility (I realize that, in discussing Hillary!, the very idea has a farcical ring to it) is critical to her defense. Obvious lies can and will be cited against her if (really, when) the FBI recommends an indictment. She will need to have something to say to DOJ to try to head off an indictment, which at this point is the only development that would certainly derail her nomination.

Many just assume that AG Lynch will reject an indictment on political grounds. She may but that gets very tricky, since the whole story will leak quickly if the FBI agents see it that way. And it runs the risk of very public resignations a la the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. They will need something to explain why DOJ rejected the FBI recommendation, if that's what happens -- something like the DOJ report on Ferguson which explained why the feds were not seeking an indictment against the cop. Failing that, an FBI recommendation could also kill her nomination even if DOJ rejects it.

Her political advisers as well as her attorneys at Williams & Connolly know all that. And it is inconceivable that she wasn't prepared for the question that Tapper asked, given all the leaks about the investigation and where it is headed. Those leaks are coming from the FBI and are their way of sending a shot across the bow to Hillary!, AG Lynch and Obama.

So I agree with Sammy F that I don't think she was lying here. I suspect that, through her attorneys, she has been asked for information and has been forced to 'cooperate,' by turning over her server, etc. But no interview yet. Her reaction here was more an expression of disgust that the presumptively Dem-favoring media was asking her something they knew she did not want to discuss.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I don't think she was lying. She looks annoyed with the question. The exaggerated blink and renewed head shaking as Tapper thanks her is meant to convey the queen's displeasure to viewers.

While the FBI may be investigating this, I just can't imagine that our corrupt government would ever indict a Clinton. Especially with a presidential election on the line. Democrats own the bureaucracy and control these agencies. It just ain't gonna happen. She knows the only thing she has to worry about is a backlash from voters. Hence her reaction to the question.

She may not have been questioned by the FBI yet, but I'm sure they've contacted her several times. That probably goes to the sense she was parsing her words and tone carefully.

She will be questioned and likely last as is often the case with the (most) guilty party. The investigator collects all the evidence and corroboration from the other witnesses/sources and then questions the investigation's key target. Not only is the target guilty, but they can pile on multiple counts of perjury if they start denying things that have been proven.

I think that this is it, more than Sammy's suggestion that she is not talking because of her lawyers (and, I think that she probably knows enough law still to not do an interview with the FBI unless forced to). My guess is that the FBI, knowing that she is well represented by counsel, is working on getting their facts in line, before forcing her to participate in an interview. Then, they can hold that over her head when they do interview her. Think of the perjury trap that they got Scooter Libby in. But, of course, she and her legal team know this too.

I don't think that I would like to be in her shoes right now. An awful lot of FBI agents are currently working on building a case that should put her in prison. She would much rather be President (and/or delay this until she could pardon herself, as only a Clinton could brazenly do). Or, just spending time with her grandchild. Except that it is too late for that - she is going to be investigated at this point regardless of whether she is running for President, and, I think, the FBI will likely refer the matter over to the DoJ for prosecution for at least the email crimes, but also, I think, the public corruption. Which means that if she really does have an alcohol problem, we will likely be seeing it rear its head over the next couple of months - that is the classic definition of stress, being caught between a rock (e.g. likely criminal referral) and a hard place (e.g. only way out is to win the nomination and election).

If she is the target, and there is ample reason to believe she is, she will not be interviewed. The FBI gains nothing useful to the prosecution. Her lawyer will see to that.

The downsides for the FBI are many. They reveal their case allowing the opportunity to frame a defense and take care of details - details like destroying evidence and intimidating potential witnesses. They, the prosecution, open themselves to endless procedural delays involving discovery and the exclusionary rule. A classic example of this is the O.J. Simpson case where the defense opted for a preliminary hearing that forced the prosecution to strip naked and show all.

The real issue here is politics. The FBI can not seek an indictment. They can only make a referral to the Justice Department. Anybody care to make any guesses as to what will come out of that black hole?

Truly, as Trump might say, "there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her… wherever.”

And it worked.

You could tell Tapper was already in a position of submission because he preceded his question with a promise there would be no follow-up no matter what she said, "I just have one last question for ya'...[stammer, stammer]..."

@Sammy - I remain unconvinced that the FBI will need to prove what you are suggesting they would need to for public corruption. What you seem to be suggesting seems similar to the defense of the McDonnells, who apparently just got Cert to review their corruption convictions (that we have been talking about at Legal Insurrection). The difference though is that they (the two politicians as well as Bob McDonnell) were elected public officials. Hillary was an executive branch employee at the time, really little different legally from when I was a GS-7 programmer 40 odd years ago. As noted there: "In campaign-finance cases, including Citizens United v. FEC, the court has noted that mere political favors for contributors do not amount to corruption..." Hillary arguably cannot have dispensed political favors since she was not, at the time, a politician, but rather, an executive branch government employee.

I don't think that she is dumb enough that they are going to find express quid pro quos in her email. But, just like you don't actually need a body to convict someone of murder, you shouldn't need the express quid pro quos to prove public corruption. Rather, a pattern of accepting money (either her husband or their foundation) and then in a very short time frame, the donor of that money getting something of value from the State Department. One instance doesn't make a pattern, but there were quite a few of these potentially illegal quid pro quos, and I think that a jury could quite easily believe that this meant that she was operating corruptly. Of course, it would be humorous if the prosecution (or at least the FBI agents) could use her husband's pardon of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists in proving the pattern (but he was a politician at the time, and they are actually two different people). We shall see.

Sammy foundations are supposed to give away 5% of their capital yearly, has the Clinton Foundation been do so? Foundations are supposed to give to IRS qualified charities, has the Clinton Foundation been doing so? Foundations are allowed to charge up to 15% of their income to overhead so if there has been less the clean money coming into the foundation it would appear that Bill, Hill and Chelsea as trustees and as recipients of salaries or expense reimbursements (and that in of itself can be a whole nother can of worms) could be facing a problem. As of now, the trend line in this investigation doesn't appear to be favorable to Hillary and Bill and Chelsea are intertwined in it.

Although there is extensive theory and literature about body language and lying, it's almost as much art as science. However, HRC's breaking eye contact, the big blink, and the pause, the exaggerated head shake all suggest deceit. Remember, too, that it's what the question means to her, so, for instance, if the FBI has requested an interview or documents, her attornys have offered a proffer, or Justice is negotiating a interview or Grand Jury appearance, something in that order, HRC feels she is being untruthful as to the intent of the question and involuntarily reacts.

I think the OP is correct. Hillary is - shocker - lying.

And of course the FBI has been in touch. Something like "Want to clarify this 'Remove the headers and send non-sercure' before we indict?" and of course her lawyers are trying to do damage control. If you think they are just stonewalling, I suspect you would be wrong. They are obfuscating, offering alternate realities, blaming George Bush, claiming there is additional record yet undiscovered or too secret to reveal, etc. Her defense is active, not passive, I would think. They are not sitting around, waiting for the hammer to drop.

Sammy one more thing it doesn't take a rocket scientist of a prosecutor to paint a picture to a jury that goes like this: a man who is a director of a family foundation and who derived economic benefit from the foundation but is not a major contributor to the foundation and who also happens to be a former president of the US along with his wife who is also a director of the same foundation who was a Secretary Of State of the US and not a major contributor to the foundation who co-incidentally granted favors to donors of the foundation while SoS and is still a director of the foundation that has received donations while the former SoS is currently the presumptive nominee of one of the major political parties in the upcoming presidential election and both have derived economic benefits from the donations of others outside the family along with their daughter who is also a director and trustee of the family foundation. Tell me you don't see a problem.

I really do not see any reason to think she's lying, other than the usual presumption that a Clinton is lying. What struck me as interesting was the timing of the question. Tapper says we're out of time but I have this one last question. Suppose she'd answered Yes. Or suppose she'd said, I've had several discussions with the FBI. Would Tapper have left it there because they were out of time? Not likely. Tapper wanted and expected the answer to be No.

steve uhr,She has frequently lied in the past and gotten away with it. She would likely expect that she could do so again, and if she were called on it, she could pretend that she was thinking of a different context for "interview."

Wow. The comparison, between Hillary in 2000, and what is left of Hillary in 2014, is appalling. If I didn't hate her filthy, lying guts, I would feel sorry for her. She has one foot in outer space, and the other one in the grave. Her running mate had better hope she lasts until the election.

Q - what happens if Hillary wins, but dies before January? Just wanted to get that out there. Her VP choice could be more important than anything the FBI gets up to.

Clintons are world class liars. She probably had her lawyers on the phone immediately after the interview developing future responses to similar questions and responses to revelations that the FBI has already interviewed her.

My theory: that's not a head shake, it's an unconscious habit of simply moving around--never holding still--that she picked up while in country dodging sniper fire. It's something you see in a fair number of combat vets--always making slight movements, adjustments; repositioning just enough that a bullet in flight might miss its mark.Hillary's seen some shit, ya'll.

It's not that big a crime. If found guilty she can wear an ankle bracelet or maybe perform public service on the weekends.

There is an interesting question that arises if she is convicted of a federal crime (etc), and that is whether she can serve. There is apparently a statute that prevents people convicted of the types of crimes that she is alleged to have committed from working for the federal govt. Except that arguably that doesn't apply to the President or VP, where the only requirements are those found in the Constitution. So, I think that I could argue that if she were convicted, that she couldn't serve as Sec. of State again, but maybe could be President or VP. Weird.

"So, I think that I could argue that if she were convicted, that she couldn't serve as Sec. of State again, but maybe could be President or VP. Weird."

Not so weird. Instead of having the courts making the decision about whether the conduct disqualifies, the Constitution leaves it up to the voters, or to their elected representatives via the impeachment process. Pretty sound process imho.

Nothing happens by accident in ClintonWorld. It is likely that this 'interview' was scripted exactly according to pre-broadcast negotiations. Including her perfunctory (false) answer to this highly pertinent question. BTW, the question is worded vaguely leaving more than one back door open.

If you haven't been interviewed by the FBI, has Huma Abedin? Has anyone on your staff? Has anyone from the FBI contacted you or anyone on your staff about the private server? Have you hired any attorneys yet? If so, who? Can we interview him?

The US constitution forbids the federal government (and the states, I believe) from granting titles of nobility. A wealthy foundation makes a good proxy for a title of nobility. A title of nobility is more than just a fancy name. It allows you to accumulate and expend political capital across generations.

Terry said...The US constitution forbids the federal government (and the states, I believe) from granting titles of nobility. A wealthy foundation makes a good proxy for a title of nobility. A title of nobility is more than just a fancy name. It allows you to accumulate and expend political capital across generations.

1/18/16, 5:28 PM"

Interesting point but in comparison to government officials in their official capacity small beer. Effective titles of Nobility: officials exempting themselves from the laws and regulations and immunizing themselves for damages and harm they cause while acting under the color of law.

Blogger Terry said...The US constitution forbids the federal government (and the states, I believe) from granting titles of nobility.--I've always felt it off-putting when elected officials seemingly retain their titles past their terms. "President ____", "Governor___" and yes.."Secretary Clinton"

It was 58,156, and yes, he dodged the draft, but what was his draft number? I recently worked with a fellow who had a relatively high number and so never got drafted. One of my teachers in college got drafted and was sent to Germany as a photographer. Two college classmates served in Vietnam as did my ex-father-in-law; all volunteered (one was a marine stationed near the DMZ, one a B52 pilot and one a mechanic on an aircraft carrier. Talking to them, you'd think they all went to different wars.)

(Also be aware that 25% of the soldiers in Vietnam were drafted, with 30% of the casualties being draftees.)

In connection with the investigation, she has to be at least a subject or a target -- they wouldn't have categorised her as a witness if they're bothering to investigate in the first place. And she's well advised by counsel. So I'm confident she hasn't been interviewed by the FBI. If she's been interviewed at all, it was probably under a Queen-for-a-Day agreement, and by a federal prosecutor, not an FBI agent (although FBI agents regularly sit in on interviews). But more likely, she's been cooperating through counsel by attorney proffers, rather than offering herself up directly. So I am pretty sure her answer here is truthful and (if it's not a tape delay) she's just thinking back to make sure there wasn't some FBI agent who buttonholed her at her offices for an ambush interview at the start of the investigation.

No, Hillary has told so many lies she had to go back and think of what lie she may trip on with her response. She was finding what was the best way to parse an answer that would not damage her later when one of her lies is exposed.

She just as so many things to cover up I have no doubt she gets confused sometimes.

She looked a bit zombie-like; her answer (and her flat affect) when she flatly said "No," was weird and it makes no sense. Tapper's question was very specific: have you been interviewed by the FBI about the security of your server? Her answer does not jibe with earlier answers she has given.

There is no question in her own mind that the two are -- or at least were -- different. She went out of her way to distinguish the FBI investigation of her server security from the expanded inquiry into public corruption, during her interview with the Des Moines Register; and in that interview, she certainly suggests she had already been questioned about the server. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/11/clinton-denies-fbi-investigation-into-family-foundation/78655054/

And this Politico story all but says the same thing, too. Or put another way, there's no story out there (that I could find) in which she DENIES having been interviewed by the FBI re her server (until now). http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

Apparently she had only the "public corruption" investigation on her mind when Tapper asked her a different question entirely. That, or maybe now she views questions about the server itself as inextricably intertwined with the public corruption inquiry, given the server presumably was an instrumentality of the offense and also holds evidence she solicited donations to CGI in return for favors from State.

Otherwise, it sounds like she flat-out lied to Tapper, or she was "very confused," as we know happens with her on occasion. It must be extremely difficult to lie constantly and, on top of that, make sure that all your lies are consistent.

Well, Hillary was using her mouth to make the sounds of words. And based upon her past, when she does that, she lies. So yes, most likely lying. Unless Hillary found a new way to speak, compared to her entire past history of speaking.